Every year thousands of books are published in economics and related studies, including several hundred in the sub-area of political economy, or ‘heterodox economics,’ as Fred Lee and many others prefer to call it. But every now and then, not often, comes a book that is far above the pack, and is perhaps worth (in non-market value terms) dozens of normal books. Such is the case with this book by Fred Lee, which attempts to do nothing less than provide a social history of heterodox economics over the past 100 years.
The author has been a member of the heterodox community for several decades, and is supremely placed to write such a history. Nonetheless, there are limits to his history, as he himself emphasizes; giving emphasis to what he calls “radical-Marxians” and “post Keynesians,” especially in the United Kingdom and the US. Despite this, several important aspects of the history of other heterodox schools are included to some degree, including (especially) social, institutional, and feminist schools.
The book itself comprises three parts, including heterodox economics (HE) in the US, HE in the UK, and HE at the beginning of the twenty-first century. HE in the US includes four chapters comprising themes in heterodoxy from the beginning to the end of the 1900s. A similar structure is then provided for the UK, but with more detail on the way in which research assessment exercises have been skewed to advantage orthodoxy. Part 3 of the book examines HE over the past fifteen to twenty years and ways in which heterodox departments and journals may be ranked with non-invidious comparisons.
The main theme of Lee’s book is that for much of the past 110 years, orthodox economics (universities mostly, but also to some degree governments and corporations), have managed to discriminate, harass, exclude, and dismiss heterodox economists from its ranks. This was done for political, economic, and social reasons; not on the basis of a balanced scrutiny of the theoretical and empirical content of heterodoxies’ intellectual edifice. At the same time, orthodoxy has managed to include some of HE’s themes, usually without acknowledgment. This special theme is not emphasized too much by Lee, but includes concepts such as institutions, historical time, uncertainty, heterogeneous agents, path dependence, information, and endogenous money.
In the light of the extensive evidence presented by Lee of harassment and discrimination, one wonders how HE has managed to survive and even at times flourish. The main period of propagation of HE was during the 1960s through to the present; other times include the 1930s, and earlier in the 1880s and 1890s. This implies that heterodoxy tends to grow much more during periods of crisis and rapid change in capitalism. Indeed, one of the core themes of HE is the central importance of structural change and metamorphosis of institutions, industries, and ideologies, and world views.
A qualitative change in heterodoxy seems to have emerged of late, Lee recognizes: it has become more pluralistic by including the various schools of HE in a more unified framework of analysis and community of scholars. Radical-Marxian, post-Keynesian, institutional, social, feminist, and related schools of HE have been working closely together (especially since the 1980s) to promote more unified concepts, principles, institutions, associations, and journals.
What, then, are the reasons for this community of heterodox scholars, which Lee emphasizes, embarking on a more unified field of inquiry? One of the factors was the recognition of Marxian economists that the Eastern Block authoritarian form of “socialism” (or ‘state capitalism,’ as some call it) eschewed the necessary emphasis on exploitation, alienation, and the need for economic, social, as well as political democracy. Another factor was that many heterodox scholars recognized that there has been both difference and similarity among the schools of HE, with the differences being largely complementary, and the similarities becoming more obvious.
For instance, radical political economists developed an analysis of segmented labor markets, long waves, power, and economic democracy to which other schools were sympathetic. Post-Keynesians had a view of uncertainty, the monetary theory of production, and endogenous money that other schools found very useful. Feminists began working with Marxists, institutionalists, and social economists while also developing their own perspectives of class, gender, and ethnicity, which mirrored advances made by other schools. Social economists reoriented their analysis to ethics, morality, and trust in the institutions while including other schools in their themes. Even Austrians seemed to look at institutions, uncertainty, endogenous money, and qualitative changes in a way strangely similar to other schools.
Lee recognizes that a community of heterodox scholars is currently being generated at a time when orthodoxy is becoming stronger. This paradox is perhaps due to things that are in the forefront of heterodoxies’ concerns with uneven development, sectoral metamorphosis, contradictory tendencies, and heterogeneous groups and agencies. HE is developing an impressive edifice of theory and empirics. Principles and stylized facts have been and continue to be developed concerning historical specificity; circular and cumulative causation; contradictory processes within the institutions; different groups of classes, genders, ethnic groups, and nations; uncertainty and risk; and uneven development and sectoral metamorphosis.
Fred Lee believes that the edifice of heterodoxy is superior to orthodoxy in being more attuned to the realistic workings of the institutions of capitalism and its alternatives. Major advances are being made to develop a community of heterodox scholars in many countries. Orthodoxy periodically takes ideas from heterodoxy to improve its own ability to understand the world. Currently, heterodoxy is advancing in leaps and bounds as thousands of scholars work together to develop a more coherent framework of analysis.
Lee has been doing a major service to humanity in documenting the rise to prominence of heterodox economics at a time when economics has lost some of its prestige in the face of financial crisis, ecological destruction, and loss of trust in many nations. But will the heterodoxy of today be the orthodoxy of the future? It may well be the case if HE manages to inculcate hundreds of scholars of a similar caliber to that of Fred Lee in advancing its theory and empirics. This is an outstanding book that deserves to be on the shelves of pluralistic economists and good libraries.
